MrSMW

@MeanRevert guests might be able to get away with that, but I don't think I would! Or maybe I could, but for me I think using a phone at a wedding (other than as a controller for my drone) is a step too far, - I still have a pretence of being professional to uphold

To be fair, I don't think anyone makes a 4k 60p compact camera do they? Overheating issues I guess? I am actually considering one to replace my camcorder that has the same sensor for purely ceremonies and speeches at weddings which I only film in 4k 25p. Why? Size/portability. Early days yet...other than knowing it's the same sensor and I used to use the RX100V at weddings, I'm not sure about battery life or whether it can be run off a power bank whilst recording etc, - some investigating to do. Had the original RX10 'bridge' camera and it was actually pretty decent.

Yay, the 0.0000001% of the world that are vloggers now have their camera, albeit requiring the selfish stick option as it’s not quite wide enough, but yay anyway. Only slightly tongue in cheek, it looks good for this market segment and I used to have an RX100v and liked it. I think if the 4K went to 60p or the lens would remain at a constant f1.8, I could find a use for one as a pocketable point & shoot stealth video cam.

They can be which is why when I get asked (a lot! By other photographers and clients) how I do both at the same time the answer is quite simple, - simplicity, ie, not trying to be too ambitious in the first place. My rule of thumb and thought process is that my video work is simply an extension of my photography work. No different angles or compositions or focal lengths or lighting or anything. Instead, one camera captures the video aspect of any scene and a second camera the stills and the only difference is actual lens choice. IMO it’s the only way one person can do both! This way video can be as ‘easy’ as photography but of course there is audio and random people walking in the way and a whole other load of things to consider but it’s all scaleable... Shoot clips + lav mic the talent? Pretty ‘easy’ to capture enough material with intent to tell the story you want. Anything more than that, the ‘harder’ (or at least more inconsistent) it gets to capture it without disruption. For instance I say the same thing to all my clients and that is: If photography is 1 and video (ie, the static capture of ceremony & speeches) is 10, then your ‘Wedding Film’ (ie, the 9-12 minute highlight production) capture process is a 2. Ie: in the 1-10 scale, the filming /clips are not so different to photography but that static and lengthy duration stuff such as the ceremony is the equivalent of 1 single stills picture and the speeches the same, ie, the total opposite and other end of the scale. Every single; cough, stutter, mic drop out, serving staff that walks in the way, child that knocks the tripod, the light levels changing, - all have to be considered and the reality is at a wedding you can try and alter the tilt of the playing field as much as possible in your favour, but you can never truly level it. It ain’t a Hollywood or Netflix closed set!

Absolutely not! Even an external monitor is a big no for me, never mind a gimbal or sliders or anything that isn’t; a body, a lens, something it can stand up on it’s own. The end. I am a strict one man stealth ninja band. Most weddings/guests don’t realise I am shooting video and that’s the way I like it. I am under no illusions that I am filming a mooovie. Anyone who does at a wedding is delusional. I do call it filmmaking in my spiel to clients but only because I do want them to think of what I do as something a bit more considered than the stereotype of a ‘wedding video’ and partly because I do actually consider what I am doing with at least a nod to cinematography. Intent-wise at least. My priorities are simple: 1: has to be transported and operated by one person (me) and alongside any/all stills photography gear and capture. 2: has to be able to happen at the same time as photography, hence which it needs to be on either a freestanding monopod (clips) or tripod (ceremony/speeches). 3: has to be 4K 60p (to punch in, level horizons, warp stabilise if needs be) because so much of my end result is slowed in post. If anything, I’d go even smaller and when I saw this new Sony announced yesterday, having used a 100v before, I thought for a nanosecond “maybe...” but then the reality of no 4K 60p and Toneh f7000 kicked in. Losers. XT3 is for my specific needs my favoured current option and I think more than good enough. I am interested in the XT4 as a pure stills machine. I am always interested in getting the best/a better output simply for my own amusement but the reality is, at this level, the kit is already good enough so the biggest difference is the operator.

I keep thinking I should write two: one a guide for couples and the other, dishing the dirt and lifting the lid on how a lot of this industry actually operates. I actually got into video myself because of those men (and they always were and every one of them in the UK was "ex-BBC" and looked like they had stolen one of the cameras used to film the studio news) who always brought their wife/girlfriend/mistress for no apparent reason other than to stand by his side all day, ie, as a photographer, got pretty fed up very quickly with the muppets so got myself a pet videographer (my brother) to come stand by me (the photographer) rather than 3 feet from the B&G all day...and we went from there.

I'm going to go the other way and say I find video 'easier' (for want of a better term). That's coming from someone who started out as a photographer 20+ years ago with film, migrated to digital and started adding a video element to my work 10+ years ago. I think it's why I find video 'easier'. I understand the kind of weddings I shoot intimately, - what people will do, how the light works etc in pretty much any given situation. After 700+ of the things, I'd hope so! I think because of that, my video work has become an extension or development of my photography in that I shoot video in pretty much the same way as I do photography, albeit with a freestanding monopod so the end result is not that much different other than the scene moves rather than is a snapshot of 1/250th of a second. 70-75% of my weddings I get booked for both, ie, photography and video and it's just normal for me to do this. If I had to pick one though for the next 10 (and last 10) years of my career, I'd pick video from an overall creative viewpoint as I find I can develop and push this further than I can my photography. It's definitely easier though for the average Joe to just pick up a camera and shoot stills these days and video does have a higher skill set. If I took things outside of my environment, ie, weddings, I don't know but on the few occasions I do, it hasn't been much different.

It looks like to me you wrote Canon M6 II...but Alexa/Canon M6 II, same thing innit? 😬

Not noticed it myself. Otherwise, I'm not actually much of a fan of IBIS or OIS for video as I don't personally care for the handheld look. I will use it at a pinch, but only trying to be a human tripod and then using warp stabiliser. But in some handheld tests, I thought the 16-80 was pretty damned decent.

Ah, a little further elaboration... I use the 16-80 on one body with tripod, ie, static for ceremony & speeches only. The Sigma 18-35 is on another body and freestanding monopod for more considered work indoors. The Tamron 45 takes over outdoors and with both of the latter lenses, mostly shooting wide open ie f1.8. No client has ever mentioned blur, bokeh or any other technical/visual aspect. If they are ever going to want to talk about something, it will be music choices and can they have their Ed Sheeran first dance inserting somewhere 🤯

For me (as I wrote) 😉 because the screen is in alignment with the lens and not sticking out the side. Otherwise (as I wrote) 🤠 I think the XT4 is better in every way!

Oh and from what I have seen and unless I have said this before, the OIS on the 16-80 seems as good as the IBIS in the XT4. I’d go with the XT4 if I could for all the other benefits but can’t get past the screen. Still planning on getting one though, but it will be purely for stills as for video for me, the XT3 is a better option.

I can’t find a better combo. I would rather the 16-80 was f2.8 but it isn’t. I would rather the 16-55 had OIS, but it doesn’t. I wish the Sigma 18-35 had OIS, but that doesn’t either. I wish the Tamron 45 was a bit smaller and lighter... Compromise everywhere as there is with all kit, but for my wedding video needs, paired with XT3 (not 4) these I feel are my best options. I am going to (when work starts back up in 2025) replace my current cheap Gobe variable ND with the Polar Pro, but otherwise the only interesting bit of kit on the radar is Fuji’s own 50mm f1.0. I hope it’s not too big or heavy compared with the Tamron 45, but even if it is, still might consider it if it’s the dogs wotsits for video. Generally though, I think other than the MK’s (too unwieldy and no AF so not for me) Fuji’s lens options for video is not the best but other stuff with the Fringer works really well.

Nope, it's a crop!

The 16-80mm f4 is even better. Not much bigger or heavier, but IMO more clarity and a bigger range plus constant aperture whereas the 18-55 is really only f2.8 at the widest and quickly goes f4. It's currently my workhorse do it all lens alongside the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 and Tamron 45 f1.8.